
. B76 
Copy 1 

WHY 

I REJECTED CERNEAUISM. 



O. R. BOURNE. 















*. 




‘Itci ra 


c 

VJ 





■> > 


> i l -J 

V> % 


A a 


^ i» 

> * 

-> € J fj 


> > < 


T>* *> 

<*-s 


c 

<>• < < 

« 

* 

*\ 4 4 

i x * 



< 

» 

f 

S 

k> 

f < 

<>4 ^ 

S 


l* 1 

* 

t < 

) 

* c 

* -v 


t‘ 

«* 

♦ 



4 c 

* * o 

* 

4 4 C 

^ <* %» 

4 

«* 



y y i o 1 > * n V ' «% 

> J ° ^ * -T© 


> v ' ^ •' *• 


4? t 


©? « 1 * 

«* t 


. c 

<- < 


t < • «♦ 




* \ * }, ' J ‘ OC * • *> *■■ « ' r'‘ - < '■ W b * t * 


v S r 

s V 












































Why I Rejected Cerneauism 



k 





To all Worthy Free and Accepted Master Masons 

throughout the Whole World: 

This pamphlet is addressed to all worthy Master Masons seek¬ 
ing light on the subject of Scottish Rite Masonry. I found myself 
in a state of ignorance on that subject last summer. I soon dis¬ 
covered that there were two rival bodies of the rite in the District 
of Columbia. One of these, whose headquarters are at 908 and 
910 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W., Washington, D. C., styles itself 
“ The Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, 
33d and last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite 
of Freemasonry for the United States, their Territories and De¬ 
pendencies,” whose Grand Commander is Bro.\ Bayliss; and 
the other, whose “House of the Temple” is at the corner of 
Third and E streets N. W., Washington, D. C., is entitled “The 
Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for 
the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America,” pre¬ 
sided over by Judge Caswell, Grand Commander. 

(Before proceeding further, allow me to substitute for the full 
titles the following abbreviations, viz.: The body on the Ave. 
for the first of these Bodies; N. J. for Northern Jurisdiction; S. J. 
for Southern Jurisdiction; G’d. Com. for Grand Commander; 
S. C’s. for Supreme Councils; A. A. S. R. for Ancient and Ac¬ 
cepted Scottish Rite; U. S. A. for United States of America; 
S. G. I’s. G. for Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General; G. O. for 
Grand Orient of France; and Sec. Gen. for Secretary-General.) 

Finding this state of affairs, I saw at once that the only thing 
to do in order to settle the matter beyond dispute was to write to 



4 


% 

some of the foreign S. C’s. who have Grand Representatives with 
them of either of said bodies—that to go into the controversy on 
the subject would be interminable. I early realized that recog¬ 
nition by foreign S. C’s. throughout the world really determined 
the whole matter. This principle is recognized in a manifesto 
now before me signed by said Bro.\ Bayliss, and published by 
his own S. C., under the caption, “ Read, Mark, Learn, and In¬ 
wardly Digest,” in answer to a document by Masons in Haver¬ 
hill, Mass., headed, “ Read and Reflect.” It reads thus: “ Recog¬ 
nition, according to Masonic Law, gives legitimacy, and, when a 
body is recognized, no other power has a lawful right to invade 
its jurisdiction. Regularity, to-day, hinges on the Scottish Rite 
Power first recognized in the United States by foreign bodies.” 

To test the matter, then, by the principle thus laid down by 
himself, I wrote to Bro.\ Bayliss, and received the following 
answer: 

“ Washington, June 3, 1897. 

“Bro.\ O. R. Bourne. 

“Sir: Your letter of the 2d inst. is received. In reply I will 
say that the Supreme Council I have the honor of representing 
corresponds with the G. O. and Supreme Council of Spain, and 
this Council does not recognize the Northern and Southern Juris¬ 
dictions. You ask about England, Scotland and Ireland. These 
bodies, as I understand, amount to but little, even if such exist 
more than on paper. 

“You profess to be a minister, one who preaches truth. What 
do you think of bodies never recognized, but to gain recognition 
use the recognition accorded to another for the purpose of decep¬ 
tion? This was done and I can prove it to the satisfaction of 
any body of men. The questions you have asked have been asked 
and answered many times. You are allowing yourself to be 
used—being put forward in a cause of which you will feel ashamed 
when you get through. 

“I am to meet you at 6.30 to-morrow eve. I will answer what 
you may desire then, and I wish to meet the man who prompts 
you. I know the justice of the cause I have the honor of repre¬ 
senting, and I am able to defend it with legitimate Masonic evi¬ 
dence. If you have any assertions to make, or if you know of 
any member of our body having been refused admission in any 
place in the world, fortify yourself with evidence. 

“ Very respectfully, 

“M. W. Bayliss.” 


5 


His reference to the G. 0. is most unfortunate. Every tyro 
in Masonry is aware that the G. O. is not recognized by legiti¬ 
mate Masons the world over ; a fortiori, not by English-speaking 
Masons; and that any Master Mason who in any way recognizes 
it, or is governed in his Masonic acts by its proceedings, thereby 
violates his solemn obligation. This to begin with. Regarding 
Spain, I have since ascertained that the S. C. he mentions in 
that country is a spurious body founded by his own S. C. With 
reference to England, Scotland and Ireland, the A. A. S. R. has 
in all three countries a most vital and most distinguished exist¬ 
ence. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is Patron and 
S. G’d. I. G. of “the S. C. for England and Wales,” and this S. C. 
was founded by the Northern Jurisdiction, U. S. A., in 1845. 
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kintore is Sov. G’d. Com. for Scot¬ 
land, whose S. C. was established by that of France, the latter 
an entirely distinct body from the G. O., and itself founded from 
the S. J., U. S. A. Lastly, the Right Hon. Hedges Eyre Chat- 
terton, Vice-Chancellor of Ireland, is Sov. G’d. Com. for Ireland, 
whose S. C. was established in 1829 direct by the same that founded 
that of France. ‘Permit me here to state that the N. J. was founded 
by the S. J., so the S. C’s. of England, Scotland, Ireland and 
France were established directly or indirectly by the S. J. I had 
requested Bro.*. Bayliss to give me the name of his Grand Corre¬ 
spondent in Belgium in addition to those in the above-named 
countries; but he makes no allusion whatever to Belgium in the 
above letter to me. In fact, as you see, he did not give me the 
name of a single correspondent of his S. C. in any country in the 
whole world. I wish my readers to bear this fact in mind. 

Having thus failed altogether to obtain the names of Grand Cor¬ 
respondents from Bro.*. Bayliss, I procured from Bro.*. Webber, 
Sec. Gen., the names of his Grand Correspondents in the five 
above-named countries. I at once wrote to all five excepting 
that of Ireland, besides addressing the G’d. Corn’s, of Ireland 
and Scotland. 1 received replies from England, Scotland and 
Belgium. None came from Ireland or France. The three replies 
received are printed below, along with my letter to the Sec. Gen. 
of Belgium. You will see by them that the English and Scotch 
Sec’s. Gen. both state emphatically that their S. C’s. do not rec¬ 
ognize any body of A. A. S. R. in the U. S. A. as legitimate but 


6 


the N. and S. J’s. Bro.'. Lindsay Mackersy, Sec. Gen. for Scot¬ 
land, further assures me that if I take the degrees under either 
of the above jurisdictions I may be certain that I am not getting 
them from a spurious source. 

But it is from Belgium that the most minute and most conclu¬ 
sive answer comes, This admirable letter from Ill.'. Bro. Gus¬ 
tave Jottrand verily sets this vexed question forever at rest with 
all candid minds. He starts out by stating that the body on the 
Ave. “ is not recognized as having any right to that title by any 
of the real Supreme Councils of this rite established in Europe.” 
This first statement is tremendous. Not recognized by any of the 
S. C’s. in Europe! Here is the principle of recognition applied 
with a vengeance. The body on the Ave. is riot recognized by 
a single European S. C.! Then he proceeds: “The fact that it 
[the body on the Ave.] declares the Grand Constitution of 
1786 ‘apocryphal’ suffices to render impossible all relations be¬ 
tween it and ourselves, for all the European Supreme Councils 
hold them to be authentic ,” &c. The failure of the body on the 
Ave. to acknowledge the authenticity of the Constitutions of 
1786 is the one great obstacle in the way of it*s recognition by 
the S. C’s. of Europe. 

He next states that delegates from twenty-two S. C’s. of the 
A. A. S. R., who met at Lausanne in 1875, reaffirmed their strict 
adherence to said Constitutions, and “ without the slightest altera¬ 
tion maintained the fundamental principles established by [these] 
ancient documents.” I would have my reader observe that in 
1875 there were not over twenty-six S. C’s. in the whole world, 
so this conference at Lausanne was representative of the universal 
A. A. S. R. This is going beyond Europe into all the world. 
He again uses the adjective “ all ”—“ they all acknowledged the 
Constitutions of 1786.” So these Constitutions are acknowledged 
by “ all” A. A. S. R. Masons in the world. 

Regarding his statement that Count d’Esterno brought to 
France a copy of these very Constitutions, freshly approved by 
Frederick the Great, let me quote what Ill.'. Bro.'. Albert Pike 
says upon this whole question: “ If we knew them to be genuine, 
we should not regard them as binding on us because Frederick 
sanctioned them. He had no power to make laws for all the 
Scottish Masons in the world. Masonic laws are not binding on 


. 7 

us because such and such a person made them; hut, if it at 
all, because when we became a Mason, or received a degree, we 
accepted them as the law of the rite or degree, and swore to 
observe them.”— Pike, “Foulhouzism and Cerneauism Scourqed,” 
p. 90. 

Next, they were from their first arrival “ received with re¬ 
spect ” by the Masons of the U. S. “ The Masons of the A. A. S. R.' 
were numerous” here (not a small, dormant or moribund body), 
and they “regarded Berlin,” not Bordeaux, as the directing 
source of their rite. The body on the Ave. has gone in quite 
another direction for guidance, viz., to Bordeaux. He affirms, 
moreover, “that the founders of the S. C. of Charleston in 1801 
acted according to the principles established in 1786 in that 
city [Berlin].” European authorities hold that the founders of 
the first authentic and recognized S. C. in the world were guided 
in their proceedings by the Berlin Constitutions of 1786. 

Now he comes to the introduction of the Charlestonian rite 
into France. One of said founders, Count Alexandre Francois 
Auguste de Grasse-Tilly, son of the Count de Grasse, who de¬ 
feated the English fleet sent to succor Lord Cornwallis at the 
close of the Revolution, carried “the organization to France in 
1804, and it was there accepted favorably” for reasons assigned. 
Then was founded, on September 22, 1804, “The S. C. of the 
33d and last Degree A. A. S. R. for France and its Dependen¬ 
cies,’^ i. e., “The Supreme Council of France,” a totally different 
body from the G. O., the latter having begun in 1773. The Su¬ 
preme Council of France thus established has lasted from that 
day to this, is the only body in France with which the S. C. of 
the S. J., U. S. A., corresponds, and also is the only body of 
the A. A. S. R. in France recognized by the S. C’s. of the rite 
throughout the world. The G. O. even finally acknowledged its 
authority on November 6, 1841. 

Next, he gives the priceless information that “ All the active 
Supreme Councils of the rite in the whole world are sprung from 
that of Charleston ”—literally, “are the children of”— an abso¬ 
lutely unconditional assertion. “All active S. C’s.,” all without 
exception, in the whole world, derive their existence from the 
S. C. of Charleston, South Carolina, U. S. A., founded in 1801, 
now known as the S. C. for the S. J., U. S. A.. That settles it! 


8 


To take Bro.\ Bayliss’ own principle, the S. C. for the S. J., 
U. S. A., founded at Charleston in 1801, is the “Scottish Bite Power 
first recognized in the United States by foreign bodies ,” for the 
S. C’s. of France, of Belgium, of England, and of all countries 
where active S. C’s. are found, recognize that of Charleston as 
the parent of all. It is, therefore, the Great Parent of all Scot¬ 
tish Rite bodies, not only in the United States, but in the whole 
world. 

Ill.*. Bro.\ Jottrand then demonstrates how impossible it was 
for Cerneau to have had the necessary authority to create a S. C. 
in Neiv York. “To enable Cerneau to found a S. C. in New 
York it were necessary that he should have received the 33d 
degree from a regular source [a S. C.] $ now it does not appear 
that he ever even claimed that this was the case.” Cerneau never 
even claimed that he had received the 33d degree from a S. C. 
There is no authentic record anywhere of any such claim having 
been made by Cerneau himself. If he wanted to start the A. A. 
S. R. in the United States, the first thing for him to have done 
was to create a S. C.. That is the way in which it invariably is 
done and must be done. According to the Bayliss manifesto, he 
established a “Sov. G’d. Consistory” in New York on October 
28, 1807. He went the wrong way about it. A Consistory does 
not found the A. A. S. R., consisting of thirty-three degrees. It 
takes a S. C. to do that, for the simple reason that a Consistory 
does not govern the 33d degree. Cerneau brought with him only 
twenty-five degrees. Even if he had come clothed with lawful 
authority and established a S. C., he was six years too late, and 
was an outlawed invader of pre-occupied territory, according to 
the Bayliss manifesto, for the Charleston S. C. of South Carolina 
was founded in 1801. The fact of the matter is that Joseph Cer¬ 
neau never did claim to found the A. A. S. R. with its thirty- 
three degrees at all. 

As a natural consequence Bro.\ Jottrand goes on to say: “All 
Masonic bodies that regard him [Cerneau] as their founder, per¬ 
petrate an unlawful usurpation of title arid name when they call 
themselves S. C’s. of G. I’s. G., 33d and last degree of the A. A. 
S. R.—there is no doubt about that.” Why that is the very 
thing that the body on the Ave. does. It does most assuredly 
regard him [Cerneau] as its founder, and therefore most assuredly 


9 


guilty of “ unlawful usurpation of title and name” when it calls 
itself by its present boastful title. We do not care to be epi¬ 
thet! cal It is sufficient that there is no doubt that it has been 
and is now practising “unlawful usurpation” by arrogating to 
itself the designation of a S. C. of the A. A. S. R. 

The next declaration that he makes is: “We in Europe con¬ 
sider this question absolutely settled by the numerous writings of 
Illustrious Albert Pike.” Now this is the man whom the Cerneaus 
have in every way possible held up to odium, abuse and vili¬ 
fication, and about whom they have invented all kinds of de¬ 
famatory legends. In Europe, it appears, he is considered the 
very highest Masonic authority on the subject of S. R. Masonry 
in general and Cerneauism in particular. So Cerneauism has no 
standing at all in Europe, or, for that matter, anywhere else! 
Albert Pike has completely demolished it. His writings have 
put poor Cerneau quietly to bed in perfect bliss with his twenty- 
five “ Degrees of Perfection.” 

He then refers to a manifesto by said Bro.\ Bayliss, just re¬ 
ceived by him. Having read it attentively, Bro.\ Jottrand de¬ 
clares that it contains nothing to change what he had above 
stated to be his opinion, that “ there are always [in said mani¬ 
festo] the same allegations that have been a hundred times re¬ 
futed, and the same want of logic and consistency” A most 
important conclusion! First, said manifesto is not of a character 
calculated to alter the opinion of any one at all familiar with the 
subject and well read in Masonic history; in other words, only 
the ignorant could be deluded by it. In the next place, the 
allegations made in it over the signature of Bro.*. Bayliss have 
been refuted a hundred times. Of course, this is hyperbole ; but it 
means in plain English that his assertions are always the same 
old, trumped-up, rehashed statements that he persists in dragging 
out again to the light of day, although they will not stand the 
test of historical evidence, and have been proved incontestably 
over and over again to have no foundation in fact. Finally, 
there is “ always the same want of logic and consistency.” Since 
then his arguments are illogical they are valueless , only calcu¬ 
lated to entrap those unfamiliar with close and sustained reason¬ 
ing. And there is inconsistency! The statements made all 
through this manifesto contradict each other, will not hold to¬ 
gether, and, therefore, the whole thing falls to pieces. 


10 


He now arrives at the point that has caused so much discus¬ 
sion, viz., Are the Constitutions of 1762, framed at Bordeaux, 
France, the fundamental law of the A. A. S. R. ? He thus pro¬ 
ceeds: “If the brethren who published this manifesto wish to 
recognize only the Constitution of the Rite of Perfection, passed 
at Bordeaux in 1762 as law, they are at liberty to do it; but it 
so, they cannot after that speak either of the 33d degree or of 
the A. A. S. R., for nothing of all that exists in the Constitutions 
of 1762.” Here a little explanation is necessary. On August 
27, 1761, Stephen Morin was commissioned “Grand Master In¬ 
spector,” with power to administer in the New World “the 
Sublime Degree of Perfection” or Rite of Heredom, being 
twenty-five in number. Article 2 of the Constitutions of Bor¬ 
deaux, passed September 21, 1762, declares that the Rite of 
Perfection or Heredom “is regularly divided into twenty-five 
degrees,” beginning with “Apprentice” and ending with 
“ Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret,” twenty-fifth degree. 
These Constitutions were “transmitted to our Bro.\ Stephen 
Morin, Grand Inspector of all the Lodges [not S. C’s., or Consis¬ 
tories, or even Chapters] in the New World.” This is another 
thing altogether from the A. A. S. R., which consist of thirty- 
three degrees, that is, eight degrees more than the Rite of Per¬ 
fection, and the degrees above the 18th (Rose Croix) arranged in a 
different order, with five degrees entirely new and mentioned in 
no other rite, viz., 23d, Chief of Tabernacle; 24th, Prince of 
Tabernacle; 25th, Knight of Brazen Serpent; 26th, Prince of 
Mercy; 33d, S. G. I’s. G. The last, and the last only, with its 
thirty-three degrees, is the A. A. S. R., as now accepted and 
recognized by the Masonic world. To say that “ the A. A. S. R.” 
is the same as “the Rite of Perfection,” is equivalent to saying 
that “Magna Charta” (the Great Charter of England) is the 
same as “the laws of Edward the Confessor.” As all logicians 
know, similarity is not sameness. Therefore, Bro.\ Jottrand 
truly says that Masons who acknowledge the Constitutions of 
1762 as the fundamental law of their rite, cannot claim the 33d 
degree, or proclaim to the world that they have the A. A. S. R., 
for said Constitutions did not originate the 33d degree, have not 
a word to say about S. G. I’s. G., and therefore did not create 
the A. A. S. R. That is exactly the position of the body on the 


11 


Ave. They do acknowledge the Constitutions of 1762, and 
repudiate the Constitutions of 1786 that brought the A. A. S. R. 
into existence ; they, therefore, judged by their own claims and 
declarations, have got only “ the Rite of Perfection,” have no 
connection whatever with the A. A. S. R., and are not 33d de¬ 
gree Masons. 

Bro.\ Jottrand further attests the fact that the estimation in 
which the authority of Berlin was held at the close of the last 
century by Masons is confirmed by a contemporary, a Bro.\ 
Shirreff. He gives vent to his astonishment at certain Masons in 
these words: “ It is strange that reasonable people can believe 
in the Constitutions of 1762, that are only known by the copy of 
them that de Grasse-Tilly brought back from the United States, 
and refuse to believe in those of 1786 that are precisely in the 
same condition.” Both Constitutions have reached us in ex¬ 
actly the same way, namely, by the copies of them brought back 
from the U. S. A. by Count de Grasse-Tilly. That is the only 
way in which both have been preserved. They both stand or 
fall together. If you reject one you must reject the other. 

He alludes to the fact that Hughan, the great English Ma¬ 
sonic authority, has been convinced of the authenticity of both 
by reading the works of Pike. 

It is thus conclusively shown by these letters from England, 
Scotland and Belgium that the body on the Ave. has no recog¬ 
nition by any genuine S. C. in the whole world ; that its repudia¬ 
tion of the Constitutions of 1786 debars all fraternal intercourse 
between it and all real European S. C’s.; that a congress of all 
the legitimate S. C’s. in the world in 1875 most heartily en¬ 
dorsed said Constitutions; that the latter became the basis of the 
true Scottish Rite in the U. S. A., the parent S. C. of the world, 
that of Charleston, South Carolina, having been founded on its 
principles; that de Grasse-Tilly, authorized by said S. C., intro¬ 
duced the present rite into France ; that “ all active S. C’s. in the 
whole world are the children of the S. C. of Charleston; ” that 
Joseph Cerneau never even claimed to be a 33d, therefore could 
not create a S. C.; that all so-called S. C’s. that call him their 
founder are usurpers of name and title; that the whole matter 
concerning all Cerneau bodies has, in European estimation, been 
set at rest by Albert Pike; that the Bayliss manifesto simply re- 
* 


12 


peats oft-refuted assertions, is valueless through want of logic, 
and self-destructive through inconsistency ; that Masons who ad¬ 
here to the Constitutions of 1762 have not got the Scottish Kite; 
finally, that both the Constitutions of 1762 and 1786 must either 
stand or fall together. 

Masonic brethren will now clearly realize that Cerneauism 
has no standing in the Masonic world. There are, as I am in¬ 
formed, only two Cerneau bodies outside of the U, S., one m 
Canada and the other in Spain, both started by the Cerneaus 
here. The true S. C. for Canada was granted authority to organ¬ 
ize from England, so this Canadian body has no recognition 
there. Down in Mexico, a Cerneau Mason would be treated 
with scorn and contempt; whereas Ill.*. Bro.\ Allison Nailor, 
representing the S. C., S. J., U. S. A., was received by President 
Diaz, G’d. Com., and his S. C. in December, 1895, with every 
possible mark of amity and honor. 

While I decline to enter into controversy on the subject, if 
What is published in this pamphlet is not sufficient, I shall take 
pleasure in again writing to Ill.*. Bro.\ Jottrand, who freely 
offers to give me further details. The original letters from Eng¬ 
land, Scotland and Belgium 1 have deposited at the “ House of 
the Temple,” corner of Third and E streets, where I will be 
pleased to meet any brother at any time and adduce my 
authorities. 

It is always well to have two strings to one’s bow, so I subjoin 
a letter in the appendix from Bro.\ Bayliss, in which he con¬ 
demns the very body of which he has since become, and now is, 
G’d. Com. There is no getting around this letter. It is both 
genuine and authentic. I can prove this. He was expelled from 
the Seymour body about 1888, and, before being admitted into 
the Thompson body, wrote this letter. 

It is necessary to explain about the Seymour and his own (the 
Thompson) body. In 1860 a split occurred in the N. J., when 
K. H. Van Rensellaer left the S. C., N. J., and formed a rival 
S. C. of his own. Thereupon, Edw. A. Raymond, G’d. Com. of 
the former, united with the Edw. B. Hays (Cerneau) Council, 
the united S. C. taking the name of the latter, with Hays as 
G’d. Com. Hopkins Thompson resigned as Hays’ L’t. G’d. Com. 
on October 20, 1864, in favor of John L. Lewis. Charges of 


13 


unmasonic conduct were preferred against Harry J. Seymour in 
September, 1865, which charges were investigated by a com¬ 
mittee of three (all old Cerneau men), and he was expelled De¬ 
cember 4, 1865. The united S. C. resumed the name of “S. C. 
for N. J., U. S. A.,” December, 1866, and the Rensellaer faction 
returned to the true fold in 1867, thus reconciling all the dis¬ 
cordant elements. Now the men who set the two present Cer¬ 
neau bodies going assert that the above dissolution of the united 
S. C’s. and revival of the S. C. for the N. J. was clandestinely 
and illegally done. It can be proved by overwhelming evidence 
that this assertion is false. Every 33d in the united body was 
duly summoned to attend the meeting in Boston, December, 
1866, at which above dissolution and revival were effected. 
Thirteen out of fifteen active and ten out of fifteen honorary 33ds 
attended. All the members present, old Cerneau men and all, 
swore fealty to the revived body. The summons addressed to 
Rev. J. Clarke Hagey (Methodist minister), 33d, from Pennsyl¬ 
vania, who since resided in this city, is now in the possession of 
Bro.\ William R. Singleton, the R. W. G’d. Sec. of the Grand 
Lodge of the District of Columbia. Bro.\ Hagey most solemnly 
avers that the whole transaction was done in every detail in a 
fair, proper and lawful manner. ♦ 

If the source is impure the stream itself cannot be pure. Now, 
Harry J. Seymour and Hopkins Thompson are the sources of the 
two streams of Cerneau ism. Thompson’s Council was started in 
1881. His claims are most effectually disposed of by Bro.\ 
Bayliss. The latter declares in extract that Gorman and his 
body (the same one founded by Thompson) “ are neither honest 
nor truthful.” That, mind you, is now his (Bayliss’) own body— 
the body on the Ave. (See extract from his letter on last page.) 

As for Seymour, whose Council began in 1878, we have seen 
above that he was expelled. He sought readmission into the 
N. J., threatening to start a new Cerneau body if his appeal 
were not granted. It was refused. It is claimed that Hays “had 
authorized Seymour to resuscitate the Cerneau Council. Hays 
could have done no such thing. He fully acquiesced in the disso¬ 
lution of the united S. C. and revival of the old Raymond body, 
died a member of the N. J., was buried by it, and his six pall¬ 
bearers were 33ds of the same, whose names I can give if so 


desired. Observe, there was not a trace of Cerneauism from 1866 
to 1878, and was then revived by an expelled Mason through 
soreness and spite. 

Finally, the great Cerneau historian, Dr. Robert B. Folger, 
writing in the New York Dispatch of 1874 about said union of 
the Raymond-Hays-Rensellaer factions, says: “We believe it to 
be the sincere desire of every brother of our beautiful rite that 
this union may continue for all time, one and indivisible.” Yet 
he has since pretended that he was deceived by said proceedings, 
and knew nothing about them until 1881. What are honest 
Masons to think of such men ! 


Washington, D. C., TJ. S., 

December 15, 1897. 


O. R. BOURNE. 


15 


APPENDIX A. 


1. —Letter from Rev. O. R. Bourne to Bro.\ Gustave Jottrand. 

Similar letters were addressed to the Sec’s. Gen. for Eng¬ 
land, Scotland and France, and G’d. Corn’s, of Ireland and 
Scotland. 

2. —Reply to above from Bro.\ Lindsay Mackersy, Sec. Gen. of 

S. C. for Scotland. 

3. —Reply to above from Bro.\ W. Portlock Dadson, Sec. Gen. 

of S. C. for England. 

4. —Reply to above from Bro.\ Gustave Jottrand, Sec. Gen. of 

S. C. for Belgium. 


June 17, 1897. 

To. M. Gustave Jottrand, 

Sec. Gen. of the S. C. of 33d and last Degree 

of the A. A. S. B.for Belgium. 

Rue du March6 aux Poulets, 20, Brussels. 


Dear Sir and Very III.'. Bro.‘. I take the liberty of coming to 
you in that spirit of confidence that brother Masons have to one 
another for some needful information, as I understand you are in 
a position to give it. 

I desire to know about “ Cerneauism ” (as it is called) in the 
United States. Its governing body arrogates to itself the name 
of “ The Supreme Council of the A. A. S. R. for the U. S. A., 
their Territories and Dependencies,” and claims to be “the only 
legitimate S. C. on American soil.” It classes the Constitutions 
of 1786 (supposed to have been made in Berlin) as “ apocryphal,” 
and proclaims the Constitutions of 1762 (made in Bordeaux) as 
the true organic law of the A. A. S. R. It, too, asserts a differ¬ 
ent origin for said rite from that claimed for it by the S. C. for 
the Southern Jurisdiction of the U. S., viz., that said rite was 
propagated by one Stephen Morin in the French West Indies, 
who was sent there for that purpose in 1761, and brought to the 
United States by Joseph Cerneau in 1807; whereas the latter 
claims that the true originator or reviver of the rite was Count 
de Grasse-Tilly. Into its history since its creation in this coun¬ 
try it is not necessary to go. A Supreme Council once estab- 


16 


lished in this country, no other can legitimately intrude. Tt is 
claimed that a S. C. had already been established in the U. 8. A. 
■(viz., at Charleston, S. C.) when Cerneau came. 

The different superior bodies of Masons (working the degrees 
above the three symbolic degrees), as I understand, have had no 
constituents at their inception, but were self-created by one indi¬ 
vidual gathering followers around him, and they together estab¬ 
lishing a rite. If they could get recognition for their rite from 
Masons throughout the world, then it stood; otherwise it fell. 
Now, is Cerneauism acknowledged universally? If not, it falls 
to the ground. Is not this true? It is stated that Belgium ob¬ 
tained her rite from France, and France from the S. C. for the 
S. J., U. S. A., the latter having commissioned Count de Grasse. 
It appears “that the hand of time effaced in France the memory 
of those degrees which had gone forth from her bosom, * * * 

and that they were brought back thither as strangers, and none 
claimed title to them.” De Grasse styles himself creator of the 
Supreme Councils in the Kingdoms of France, Italy, Naples, 
Spain, the Low Countries, &c. 

I would esteem it a great favor if you would enlighten me on 
this whole subject. Please quote authorities if possible. I have 
the pleasure of enclosing Bro.*. Frederick Webber’s (Sec. Gen.) 
card. Be so kind as to affix the seal of your Supreme Council. 

Yrs. very truly and frat’rn’ly, 

OBRE RALPH BOURNE. 


Edinburgh, July 6, 1897. 

Dear Sir and Brother: Lord Kintore has forwarded to me 
your letter to him of date 17th June ulto., and the letter to me of 
same date therein enclosed. 

In reply, I beg to inform you that this Council recognizes the 
Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction, U. S. A., and the 
Supreme Council of the Northern Jurisdiction, U. S. A., as law¬ 
ful Councils of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and that 
it recognizes no other body in America claiming to be a Supreme 
Council of that rite. 

In these circumstances, if you will be so good as. apply to the 
Grand Secretaries, either of the Northern or Southern Jurisdic¬ 
tion, you will get from them the information you desire, and if 
you take the degrees under either of these Constitutions you may 
feel assured that you are not taking them from a spurious body. 
I remain, dear sir and brother, yours fraternally, 


Rev. O. R. Bourne, 
1041 32 d Street N. 


L. MACKERSY, 33° 

G. G. Sec. H. E. 

W., Washington , D. C., U. S. America. 



17 


33 Golden Square, 
London, W., July 14,1897. 

Dear Sir: I am desired by the Supreme Council, 33°, of 
England and Wales, to acknowledge your letter of 18th June, 
and in reply to inform you that they can only enter into the 
points raised by you through the officials of the Supreme Coun¬ 
cils with which we are in amity, and which are the Supreme 
Council, 33°, of the N. J., U. S. America, and the Supreme 
Council, S. J., U. S. America, which alone are recognized here. 

I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, 

W. PORTLOCK DADSON, 

Sec. Sup. Council , 33° 

The Rev. O. R. Bourne, 

1041 32 d Street N. W., Washington, D. C., U. S. America. 


14 Rue du Persil, a Bruxelles, 
Valley of Brussels, Belgium, July 17, 1897. 

The Grand Chancellor, Secretary-General, of the Supreme Council 
of Belgium, to the Very Illustrious Bro.'. O. R. Bourne, 
Valley of Washington, JJ. S. A. 

Very Dear and Very Illustrious Bro.'. I proceed to answer as 
well as I can your fraternal letter of June 17 last. The Masonic 
body established in New York, and styling itself “The Supreme 
Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, 33d and last 
Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for the United 
States of America, their Territories and Dependencies,” is not 
recognized as having any right to that title by any of the real 
Supreme Councils of this rite established in Europe; it has no 
official relations with them, and it does not interchange with them 
either Grand Representatives or guarantors of friendship. The 
fact that it declares the Grand Constitutions of 1786 “ apocry¬ 
phal” suffices to render all relations impossible between it and 
ourselves, for all the European Supreme Councils hold them to 
be authentic, and find in them the origin of their name and of 
their organization. In 1875 there assembled at Lausanne, 
Switzerland,'the delegates from twenty-two (22) Supreme Coun¬ 
cils of our rite ; they all acknowledged the Constitutions of 1786 
and the additions to them as the basis of their labors. They 
added certain modifications of detail, but, without the slightest 
alteration, maintained the fundamental principles established by 
the ancient documents. In our opinion, there was in Paris as 
early as 1787 a Supreme Council of Grand Inspectors of the 33d 
Degree established by Count d’Esterno, ambassador of France 
near Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, who [d’Esterno] 
brought back with him the Constitutions approved by this mon- 



18 


arch, but the revolution which commenced in 1789 prevented 
this germ from growing. It has been otherwise in the United 
States. We do not know who carried thither the Constitutions 
of 1786; but they reached there, and they were received with 
respect. Masons of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite 
were numerous there, and regarded Berlin as the central director 
of their activity. It is according to the principles established in 
1786 in that city (Berlin) that the founders of the Supreme 
Council of Charleston in 1801 have acted. One of these, the 
Count de Grasse-Tilly, introduced the organization into Franee 
in 1804, and it was there accepted favorably, because certain 
Masons there had preserved the remembrance of the efforts of 
Count d’Esterno. All the active Supreme Councils of the rite 
in the whole world are sprung from [the children of that] of 
Charleston [South Carolina]. To enable “Cerneau” to found a 
Supreme Council at New York, it were necessary that he should 
have received the 33d degree from a regular source. Now it 
does not appear that he [Cerneau] ever even claimed that this 
was the case. All the Masonic bodies that consider him their 
founder perpetrate an unlawful usurpation of title and name 
when they call themselves Supreme Councils of Grand Inspectors- 
General, 33d and last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scot¬ 
tish Rite —there is no doubt about that. We in Europe consider 
this question as absolutely settled by the numerous writings of 
the Illustrious Albert Pike, which you certainly know and have 
doubtless carefully read. 

I have just received from Bro.\ John C. Backer, Secretary- 
General, 63 Bleecker street, New York, a printed manifesto signed 
by Bro.\ Bayliss, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, 
about the regularity of which you ask my opinion. I have read 
it attentively. It does not contain anything of a nature to alter 
my opinion ; there are always the same allegations that have been 
a hundred times repeated, and the same want of logic and con¬ 
sistency. 

If the brethren of the Masonic body that published this mani¬ 
festo wish to recognize as law only the Constitutions of the Rite 
of Perfection, adopted at Bordeaux in 1762, they are at liberty 
to do it; but, if so, they cannot after jthat speak either of the 
33d degree or of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, for 
nothing of all that exists in the Constitutions of 1762. 

I hope I have satisfied your desire. We do not know any more 
on the subject than Pike knew about it. I am ready to give you 
more details if you desire them. The fact that Masons recognize 
the authority of Berlin at the close of the last century is con¬ 
firmed, in addition to the evidence already collected by Pike, by 
the letters of a Bro.\ Shirreff of 1785, published by Sadler in Ins 
work, “Masonic Facts and Fictions,” p. 156, London, 1887. 




19 

It is strange that reasonable people can believe in the Con¬ 
stitutions of 1762, that are only known by the copy of them that 
De Grasse-Tilly brought back from the United States, and refuse 
to believe in those of 1786 that are precisely in the same con¬ 
dition. (See Gould, “ History of Free-Masonry, vol. 5, pp. 128 
and 129.) . Note that if Gould does not believe in the authen¬ 
ticity of either one or the other, Hughan does believe in them 
since reading the works of Pike. I have made a synopsis in a 
pamphlet that I send you of the proofs furnished by this last 

Accept very dear and very illustrious brother my most sincerely 
fraternal saluation. 

lsup S reme 0 Oo h unoilt GUSTAVE JOTTRAND, 33°. 

( of Belgium, j 


20 


APPENDIX fi. 


Letter from Bro.\ M. W. Bayliss to a friend, with an extract. 
This letter and said extract from one he wrote November 29, 
1890, are printed in what is termed an “ Excerpt from an 
Allocution delivered by M.\ Ill/. Philip F. D. Hibbs, 83°, 
at Annual Rendezvous of the Sovereign Grand Consistory, 
A. A. S. Rite, Boston, Mass., June 26, 1893.” 


Washington, D. C., December 11, 1890. 

My Dear Sir and Bro.\ Your favor of the 8th instant came 
duly to hand. In reply I will state that it is not my intention 
to champion the cause of any of the claimants to Scottish Rite 
supremacy. My aim and object is to give you such historical 
facts as I can with the view of enabling you to arrive at a correct 
judgment in regard to the claims of what is known as the Gor¬ 
man body. 

You say you do not agree with me in what I wrote about the 
claims of the Seymour-Peckham body ; that Seymour was legally 
expelled,- &c. I do not ask you to agree with me at this time. 
The legality of the Seymour-Peckham body is not being con¬ 
sidered by us; it is the legality of the Gorman body we are dis¬ 
cussing; but after we get through with it we can discuss the 
legality of the other one if you so desire. You say that the 
Gorman body does not recognize the powers of Robinson to re¬ 
suscitate the Raymond body after it had been legally merged into 
the Hayes body. I beg to differ with you. The organizers of the 
Gorman body were parties to the actions of Robinson and assisted 
him. I will back up this assertion with evidence and ask you as 
a favor to please quote your authority for any statements you 
may make in support of the claims of the Gorman bodv in 
future. If you will do this, it will save me considerable trouble, 
as I can then pick out just such evidence as I may need. 

The published proceedings of what is known as the Gorman 
body for the year 1881, pp. 5 to 8, contain the preambles and 


21 


resolutions adopted on their organization, and you must admit 
that their own records should be good evidence in their own case 
at least. The preambles and resolutions were presented by Mr. 
Hopkins Thompson, and after setting forth well-known historical 
facts, Mr. Thompson, w T ho issued the call for the meeting, con¬ 
tinuing, states: “Now t , therefore, I, Hopkins Thompson, Lieut. 
Gr. Commander under Ill.-. Bro.\ Edmund B. Hayes, having 
summoned for advice and assistance past officers and members 
of the Supreme Council, and receiving their consent and co-ope¬ 
ration, do hereby condemn and utterly repudiate the said treas¬ 
onable action of the aforesaid Simon W. Robinson, his associates 
and abettors, as arbitrary, unconstitutional and void; and that I 
do now (by virtue of my office aforesaid under Ill.-. Bro.\ Hayes) 
declare and proclaim the labors of the Supreme Council of Sov. 
Gr. Inspectors-General of the 33° of the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite of Free-Masonry for the United States of America, 
their Territories and Dependencies, resumed, and I call upon all 
brethren of the rite, at any time, owing obedience to the Su¬ 
preme Council, to resume their proper places.” 

From the foregoing you can clearly see that Mr. Thompson 
claimed the right to recognize the old Hayes body by virtue of 
having been Lieutenant Grand Commander of that body under 
E. B. Hayes, and that he is the man who brought what is known 
as the Gorman body into being. Now, who is this Mr. Thomp¬ 
son, and did he possess the powers he claimed? On this question, 
I take it, the legality of the Gorman body stands. Mr. Hopkins 
Thompson was the Lieutenant Grand Commander of the Hayes 
body under E. B. Hayes, until October 20, 1864, when he re¬ 
signed the office and was succeeded by John L. Lewis. Reprint 
p. 190 shows that the Ill.’. Second Lieutenant Grand Commander 
Hopkins Thompson offered his resignation of office, and that 
John L. Lewis was immediately elected and installed as his suc¬ 
cessor, so that whatever rights Mr. Thompson may have had he 
certainly had none as the last Lieutenant Grand Commander 
under Hayes; John L. Lewis was the Lieutenant Grand Com¬ 
mander when it is claimed Mr. Hayes resigned his office in De¬ 
cember, 1865, and continued in the same office under Mr. Robin¬ 
son until May, 1867. Mr. Thompson attended the meetings of 
the body right along after his resignation; was present when the 
Constitution was unlawfully changed in 1864 ; was present when 
the old Raymond members resumed their old name, “Supreme 
Council for the Northern Jurisdiction,” October 22, 1865; was 
present on the same day when Paige and Sickles were appointed 
a committee to visit the Southern Council, and took part in all 
the movements of the Raymond-Robinson people for the capture 
of the Hayes organization. Any fair-minded man must admit 
that the Hayes body would never appoint a commiteee to visit 


22 


the Southern Council, and any man who knows anything about 
the workings of Scottish Rite Masonry knows that no member 
of the Hayes body would be admitted to the Southern Council. 
Messrs. Paige and Sickles, the committee appointed to visit the 
Southern Council, October 22, 1865, visited that body in Decem¬ 
ber, 1865, and reported the result of their labors to the Robin - 
son-Raymond-Thompson party the same month and continued. 

December 13, 1865, EbenezerH. Shaw, a 33d owing allegiance 
to the Southern Council, was admitted as a visitor to the Robin¬ 
son Council. If this had been a Hayes or a Cerneau Council, 
Mr. Pike would have expelled Mr. Shaw. The next day after 
this visit, it is claimed, Seymour was expelled for saying that this 
Robinson Council was illegitimate and spurious, and that he could 
prove it. 

June 5, 1866. Mr. Thompson was present when Robinson 
delivered an address which would open the eyes of any honest 
man, provided they were closed to the movements going on. 
Before quoting from that address I wish to call your attention to 
the fact that the Gorman people lay great stress upon a resolu¬ 
tion which was passed at this meeting, changing the time of the 
annual meeting. Mr. Thompson lays particular stress upon this 
point, and such being the fact he cannot plead to having heard 
the resolution and being ignorant of the address delivered at the 
same time. 

At this meeting, held June 5, 1866, reprint p. 212, Mr. Rob¬ 
inson delivered the following address: 

“If rightly I interpret the signs of the times an unusual 
amount of important business will come before the Council at its 
present session which will require patient and calm consideration. 
This I doubt not it will receive, and that your decisions will be 
such as’ will stand the test of the severest scrutiny. It will be 
remembered that at the last meeting of the Council, December, 
1865, its attention was called to the renewal of those friendly re¬ 
lations with the Southern Council, which had been interrupted 
by the defection of one of the active members of the Council 
oyer which M.\ P.*. E. A. Raymond presided, who called to his 
aid others of every other line of character to assist in its over¬ 
throw and get possession of its funds. Every obstacle to the 
accomplishment of this purpose excited their indignation and 
hatred, and they did not hesitate at anything, however reprehen¬ 
sible or contrary to Masonic law. 

“As conservator of the honor and integrity of the Ancient and 
Accepted Rite, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Northern 
Jurisdiction felt bound by his obligations to resist by all the 
means in his power the execution of their plans. To do this the 
Northern Council was forced into the unfortunate dilemma, dis¬ 
approved and deemed irregular by the Southern Council. ’ The 




23 


importance and desirableness of maintaining friendly relations 
with all regular Councils, especially with the Southern, must be 
apparent to every brother. And now to the question: What 
more can be done to accomplish this desirable result? ” 

Mr. Thompson lays great stress upon the address delivered by 
Mr. Robinson in Boston, December 13, 1866, but pays no atten¬ 
tion to this one. Compare the two and see how lame the criti¬ 
cism of Mr. Thompson is. Mr. Thompson and his followers 
claim that they were ignorant of what was transpiring or did 
transpire until the appearance of what is known as the “reprint” 
in 1881. Let us analyze this address a little and see whether 
or not Mr. Thompson could have been ignorant. Mr. Rob¬ 
inson said: “ It will be remembered that at the last meeting 
of this Council, December 13-14, 1865.” What Council? Mr. 
Gorman, I presume, would answer the Hayes-Robinson Coun¬ 
cil. Was it the Hayes-Robinson Council? I say, No. Why? 
Because Mr. Robinson distinctly states that “ its attention was 
called to the renewal of those friendly relations with the South¬ 
ern Council.” The Hayes-Robinson Council could not renew 
friendly relations with the Southern Council, consequently it 
must be admitted that those friendly relations were renewed 
by the revived Raymond body, with Mr. Robinson presiding 
as the successor of Mr. A. Raymond. Robinson says further 
in his address that those friendly relations were “ interrupted 
by the defection of one of the active members of the Coun¬ 
cil over which M.\ P.\ E. A. Raymond presided.” This shows 
conclusively that the Hayes body was not being considered; 
Robinson and the others thought they had captured it. The 
active member who interrupted their friendly relations was 
Killean Van Rensellaer, who never was a member of the Hayes 
body. Continuing, Mr. Robinson said that, “ as conservator of 
the Ancient and Accepted Rite, the Sovereign Grand Comman¬ 
der of the Northern Jurisdiction (E. A. Raymond) felt bound 
by his obligations to resist.” Resist what? The machinations 
of Messrs. Van Rensellaer, Carson and Co., who had interrupted 
the friendly relations existing between the Raymond and Pike 
Councils and forced Raymond and his followers to seek shelter 
under the sheltering wings of Cerneau. To do this, Robinson 
says, “ The Northern Council was forced into the unfortunate 
dilemma, disapproved and deemed irregular by the Southern 
Council.” What difference would it make to the Hayes Council 
whether Pike declared the Northern Council spurious or not? 
Not a particle. Robinson was simply addressing the revived 
Raymond body and bewailing their misfortunes. In all candor, 
J ask you if you believe that any man could listen to the 
above address and be deceived? Do you believe that a man in¬ 
telligent enough to occupy the second place in a Supreme Coun- 


24 


cil could be deceived ? I am free to say that it does not seem 
possible to me. The substance of the address is that the Ray¬ 
mond Council for the Northern Jurisdiction was forced to the 
wall by the Van Rensellaer faction in their own Council, and 
Robinson wails because Pike considered the Raymond-Robinson 
faction as irregular. Their whole aim was to get back into the 
good graces of Mr. Pike, and with the assistance of Mr. Thomp¬ 
son and a few others, who now claim they were deceived. Mr. 
Robinson and his party came pretty near stealing what there 
were of the Hayes body. Robinson should have continued this 
address and said that Raymond, himself and others sought refuge 
in flight from Van Rensellaer & Co., and found a haven of rest 
under the shelterings wings of Cerneau. Instead of saying this, 
however, he said : “ What more can be done to accomplish this 
desirable result?” What desirable result? The complete for¬ 
giveness of Mr. Pike and capture of the Hayes Council. What 
had they already done ? Robinson asks what more can be done. 
Let us see what they had done. They had found a haven of 
rest under the sheltering wings of the Hayes body, but no sooner 
were they in than they began ' to plot for the capture of the or¬ 
ganization under the direction of Mr. Pike. Their oaths amounted 
to nothing. Remorse only seemed to fill their souls and their 
only ambition to be a return to the embrace of Mr. Pike and his 
Southern Council. 

It 1864 they changed the Constitution of the body unlawfully 
as the first move. In October, 1865, the name of the Council was 
unlawfully changed and a committee appointed to visit the South¬ 
ern Council. In December, 1865, a Pike 33d was admitted as a 
visitor. This same month the committee appointed to visit the 
Pike Council reported the result of their mission. This same 
month it is said that Hayes resigned his office, and was succeeded 
by Robinson. This same month it is also said that Seymour was 
expelled. In April, 1866, a committee again visited the Pike 
Council and reported the result to this June meeting, at which 
the address was delivered, quoted above. You must remember 
now that Mr. Thompson was a party to all this, and that Mr. 
Gorman and his people claim .that the Hayes body was all right 
until Robinson reorganized the Raymond body in Boston. 

It is said that there was an understanding between the Hayes 
and Robinson people, and that all was done was in conformity 
with that understanding. I think that I have demonstrated that 
Mr. Thompson could not take part in the above proceedings and 
be deceived, but I am not through with his case yet. I believe 
that I have also demonstrated that Mr. Thompson had no right as 
a Lieutenant Grand Commander, John L. Lewis having succeeded 
him. We will now trace up the subsequent record of Mr. Thomp¬ 
son and see what became of him. N. J. Proceedings for 1873, 


25 


p. 53, contains the following letter from Mr. Thompson, which 
will speak for itself: 

New York, November 4, 1873. 

To the Supreme Council for the Northern 

Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States: 

The undersigned respectfully represents that in 1862 he was Lieu¬ 
tenant Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, of which Ill.'. 
Edmund B. Hayes was Grand Commander; that in order to aid the 
union of that Supreme Council with the one of which Edward A. 
Raymond was Grand Commander, he resigned his said office, but did 
not resign his membership; that on account of sickness, long con¬ 
tinued, he did not give attention to the matter until after the union 
of 1867, and that under the treaty by which the union was formed 
in 1867 he is entitled to rank as an Emeritus Member of the Supreme 
Council. That he has taken the oath of fealty. He prays therefore that 
the matter may be examined, and that he may be enrolled as an 
Emeritus Member. 

Courteously and fraternally submitted. 

HOPKINS THOMPSON, 

Past P. Grand Lieutenant Commander. 

Page 57 of the above proceedings shows that Mr. Thompson’s 
request was granted, and that he became a member of the North¬ 
ern Jurisdiction in good faith. The above evidence disposes of 
Mr. Thompson and his claims. 

I will now proceed to show you why the Gorman body was 
organized. Mr. John J. Gorman, its present head, claimed that 
he had received the Scottish Rite degrees in the rite of Memphis, 
and asked the Northern Jurisdiction to heal him as a 33d in 
1870. N. J. Proceedings, 1870, p. 6, shows that Mr. Gorman 
and others petitioned the Northern Jurisdiction to be healed as 
33d, they claiming that they had received that and the preced¬ 
ing degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, in the 
Memphis rite. Their petition was referred to a committee, and 
the Northern Jurisdiction refused to grant the request of Mr. 
Gorman, consequently Mr. Gorman turns up as a 33d in the 
body organized by Mr. Thompson. I do not say that Mr. Gor¬ 
man went into this body on that account, but my opinion is that, 
if the Northern Jurisdiction had granted his request in 1870 ami 
healed him as a 33d, he might be there now instead of where 
he is. 

It is said by some that the present Gorman body was organized 
for the purpose of making a gentleman a 33d who was refused that 
honor in the Northern Jurisdiction. I have looked into the matter 
some and will give you the result. Mr. John G. Barker is the 
man, and he was one of the prime movers in the organization of 
the body. The N. J. Proceedings for 1873, p. 65, show that 
John G. Barker was elected to receive the 33°, but he never re¬ 
ceived it. The reason said to be for his not receiving it is that 




26 


Charles T. McClenachen objected to him. There is no question 
but Mr. Barker was the man who pulled the strings in organiz¬ 
ing this body, and he was the first one to receive the 33° erund 
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson called his meeting September 
27, 1881, and on the following day at a special meeting, Mr. 
Barker was made a 33d, and the Grand Secretary-General of the 
Council at the first regular meeting thereafter. Mr. Thompson, 
Mr. Barker and the others claim that they were ignorant of what 
transpired in 1866, until the reprint appeared in 1881. I think 
that I have shown Mr. Thompson could not have been ignorant, 
and I think I can show that Mr. Barker had copies of the origi¬ 
nal of the reprint as early as 1874. 

Josiah H. Drummond of Portland, Maine, in a letter which is 
published in the Official Bulletin of the Southern Jurisdiction, 
Yol. 7, No. 1, dated July, 1885, states that the proceedings of the 
1866 meeting were published early in 1867, and were distributed 
all over the country, were sold in open market, and were to be 
found in every Masonic library of any pretensions. They were 
reprinted in 1881 (he states) under my supervision, word for 
word, as nearly as possible,And the reprint was circulated all 
over the country. 

The above is a pretty clear statement, and I think it will con¬ 
vince you that the original of the reprint was not hard to 
obtain. In 1874, Mr. Barker bought out what was known as 
the Masonic Publishing Company, under Macoy and Sickles, and 
among the books bought was quite a number of copies of the 
original proceedings published, as Mr. Drummond states, in 1867, 
so that it is fair to presume that Mr. Barker knew just as well in 
1874, if not sooner, what transpired in 1866 as he did in 1881 
from the reprint. 

Before going further I wish to say to you that I have no feel¬ 
ing against Mr. Barker or those associated with him. I believe 
them to be in the wrong, and what I say is simply for your in¬ 
formation. In this connection I will say, however, that I would 
like to know what authority you have for saying that Mr. Peck- 
ham “ intends to unite with the Gorman body.” I fear that you 
have been told this by some unreliable party. Address a letter 
to William H. Peckham, 4 and 6 Liberty Place, New York, 
using my name if you wish, and ask Mr. Peckham if such is the 
fact. The truth will do no harm. 

In regard to my position, 1 will state that it makes no difference 
where I stand; I am not a member of the Pike or any other 
Scottish Rite body, but when asked for information I do not pro¬ 
pose to stand idly by and allow friends of mine to enter the 
Gorman or any other body without telling them the plain, un¬ 
varnished truth. I understand from good authority that the 
whole aim of the Gorman body is to be healed and recognized by 


* 


27 




the Northern Jurisdiction as 33ds 4s I said. I told you in my 
previous letter to stay where you were; you will find out how 
good that advice is when too late, if you have anything to do 
with the Gorman body. They have no organization in New York 
city, where the Masonic fraternity knows most about Cerneau 
Masonry. The Masons of New York know the truth of what I 
have told you in this letter, and it is impossible for those people 
to organize bodies in New York or vicinity. 

Do not tell me that they have b' lies unless you name the time 
and place where they meet so that we can investigate. 

Fraternally yours, 

(Signed) M. W. BAYLISS. 


In a letter to another friend underrate of November 29, 1890, 
Mr. Bayliss says: “ Whatever you and your friends may do take 
my advice and have nothing to do with Gorman and his body. 
They are neither honest nor trutl/J. Keep away from them!” 

And this is the so-called “Supreme Council of the United 
States of America, their Territories and Dependencies,” of which 
the said Bayliss is now Grand Commander! Verbum sat sap. 






8g&v \ m 

\ 






H. 




















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 013 74P 588 7 



> 


f ' 


/ 




































« 









y: A 


iva - 



• J ' ' V 



- 



















; ; 


I 
































































